MANJESH B. Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition is filed by the applicant in Application No.1452 of 2024 before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bangaluru (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for short). The applicant had challenged an order of transfer dtd. 16/3/2024 issued by the first respondent on the ground that he had been prematurely transferred to accommodate the fourth respondent on political dictates. The Application was dismissed which has led to this writ petition.

(2.) It is submitted that the petitioner had been posted as Joint Director and Member Secretary, Anekal Planning Authority on 26/7/2023. He contended that he has been transferred out on 16/3/2024 barely 8 months after having taken charge at Anekal and that the same was bad in law. It is submitted that on 21/3/2024, the Tribunal had granted an interim order of stay of transfer. Thereafter, the petitioner was suspended from service based on an FIR lodged by the Lokayukta Police invoking Sec. 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The said order of suspension was challenged in Application No.1713 of 2024 before the Tribunal and on 10/4/2024, an interim order of stay of the suspension was granted. It is stated that thereafter the matter was heard by the Tribunal and the records leading to the transfer were also made available. It is stated that without considering the valid contentions raised by the petitioner, the Tribunal held that the transfer of the petitioner was in public interest and administrative exigencies and was therefore justified.

(3.) The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the transfer of the petitioner admittedly being a premature transfer in terms of Rule 9(a) of the guidelines regarding Transfer of Government Servants, the Tribunal ought to have seen that the said guidelines are statutory in nature and that the transfer could not have been affected without there being specific reasons recorded by the appropriate authority, which secured the prior sanction of the Chief Minister. It is submitted that in the instant case, there were no reasons whatsoever recorded for the premature transfer much less any sustainable reasons, which were approved by the Chief Minister. It is submitted that the finding of the Tribunal that the Chief Minister had approved the premature transfer and therefore no judicial review was required to be conducted was per se illegal.